(PC) Weaver v. California Correctional Institution Confinement Shu Doc.

Case 1:06-cv-00425-OWW-WMW Document 3 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 1 of 2

2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 WILLIE WEAVER,

8 Plaintiff, CV F 06 0425 OWW WMW P

9 vs. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

10

11 CCI SHU,

12 Defendant.

13

14 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action challenging

15 the conditions of his confinement.

16 Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at

17 CCI Tehachapi, sets forth vague allegations of conduct by correctional officials at CCI

18 Tehachapi. Plaintiff alleges that he is being controlled by a mind device machine, that

19 defendants have set up cameras in the vents and in a neighboring cell in order to spy on plaintiff,

20 and that defendants are conspiring to murder him. Plaintiff identifies no particular individual and

21 does not charge any individual defendants with specific conduct.

22 The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner

23 bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while

24 incarcerated or detained in a facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States

25 that was dismissed on the ground that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

26
1

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 1:06-cv-00425-OWW-WMW Document 3 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 2 of 2

1 which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious injury.” 28

2 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3 This plaintiff has, on 3 prior occasions, brought civil actions challenging the

4 conditions of his confinement. All three action were dismissed as frivolous, or for failure to state

5 a claim upon which relief can be granted. Weaver v. Pelican Bay State Prison, No. C 04-3077

6 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal May 18, 2005); Weaver v. Nimrod, No. C 04-3154 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Dec.

7 14, 2004); Weaver v. Daniel, No. C 05-1373 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2005); Weaver v.

8 Pelican Bay State Prison Mail Room, No. C 04-4784 JW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2005); Weaver

9 v. Montiero, et al., No. 05-0166 RSWL (FMO) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2005). Plaintiff is therefore

10 not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis unless he alleges facts indicating that he is in imminent

11 danger of serious physical injury. There are no such facts alleged in this case.

12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to show cause,

13 within thirty days of the date of service of this order, why his request to proceed in forma

14 pauperis should not be denied. Failure to file a response will result in a recommendation that

15 this action be dismissed.

16

17

18

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: April 24, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21

22

23

24

25

26
2